Talk:Web search engine

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Internet Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Internet, an attempt to better organise information in articles related to the Internet. For more information, visit the project page.
B This article has been rated as B-class on the class scale.
High This article has been rated as high-importance on the importance scale.

Contents

[edit] Google ranking

"Google is currently the most popular search engine." I added a need for a citation here, because the Alexa Top 500 in fact ranks Yahoo ahead of Google (at Nov 2007). So a citation is needed to justify the statement. In addition the statement may need to be clarified/limited in its extent as to by who/where it is most popular - e.g. English speakers? USA? Europe? - since Google has many domains apart from .com Ray3055 (talk) 12:16, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

As a search engine, Google is by far the market leader - I added the citation. Alexa likely has Yahoo higher cuz Yahoo gets more visits to all their properties, since more people use Yahoo Mail, MyYahoo, etc. --ZimZalaBim talk 14:50, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. Yes, I agree, the Alexa rankings are not limited to 'Search' sites. I added an additional ref since the Nielson link rated only 'US searches', although I know they also cover other countries.Ray3055 (talk) 22:03, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

no one cares —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.77.26.189 (talk) 18:21, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Regardless of whether Google is currently the most popular (which most accounts say that it is), we don't want to have to edit this page every time the market dynamics change. The statement should be neutral, like "Google is an example of a search engine".

Drmadskills (talk) 13:55, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Historical statistics

 Please help improve this article or section by expanding it.
Further information might be found on the talk page or at requests for expansion. (March 2008)

I just added a table showing market share stats for December 2007. It would be neat to expand this into a graphic showing market share or number of searches over time since the early 1990s. -- Beland (talk) 00:28, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

There's no way these can add up to exactly 100.0 % since there are many small search engines that together may only take up 0.1-0.2%, but these cannot be ignored as being non-existent. We must then find out the market share values to a higher precision, and have a final row that indicates: "All Others || < 1 || 0.1%"

Drmadskills (talk) 14:32, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Cleanup needed

I suggest that this article needs cleanup, particularly a trimming of external links. Some of the reference formatting is mismatched, and the choice of references is spotty. Some individual sections are tagged for improvement. The list of See Alsos is gigantic; some of these might just be included as links in the text. A good pass of copyediting might be able to fix the article. If you are strongly attached to any of the current external links, please say more about why they are valuable. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 19:28, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to go through this article now, I've added it to my "wiki watch" list. I actually inserted the civicseo.com external link, it's a website with information related to search engine optimization. Which I feel is directly related to the article, I also included an internal link to the wiki search engine optimization article in the see also. SDSandecki (talk) 21:22, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
I also think the section "Challenges faced by Web search engines" needs to go, unless some accurate references can be obtained. SDSandecki (talk) 21:26, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
Can I get some ideas on what we should and should not get referenced in this article, I'll do some researching later tonight on anything question. SDSandecki (talk) 22:18, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Two (format) corrections at: Ask Jeeves & A9.com items, at the Timeline INFOBOX

  • I don't know exactly (I have no experience at this classification) if I have

or not to check minor edit box, versus: the major edit: version that should be reviewed to confirm that it is consensual to all concerned editors.

  • So I don't check it.
  • I've spent a lot of time to explain myself versus the few time needed to change what I consider a minor edit. A formating problem (of the TIMELINE box), to put clearly that these items:
Ask Jeeves & A9.com items
correspond to (relating to)
those years 1996, 2004; at this article(Web search engine).
If you read all I have written here, maybe you understand a little.
  • The subject: the article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Web_search_engine
  • The problem is about the table/BOX (You can see the wiki CODE) class="bordered infobox"
  • It's about the information (years & two Web_search_engines):
  •  ?
  • 1997~96 Ask Jeeves: Founded
  • 2005~04 A9.com: Launch
  • You cannot know which of them (the year of founding or launching).
  • It is a matter of formatting. A problem that I can correct.
  • 1st: I looked at (them) it:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ask_Jeeves ( ... redirected to.. ) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ask.com
1996 = Founded.
  • A9.com: Launch
A9.com = its Category: Internet properties established in 2004.
A9.com = went live on April 14, 2004, ( an Internet search engine from Amazon.com ).
Well, 2004. I think. Don't you?
  • 2nd: ( I studied the wiki code 1st, and I saw the error, if:
we accept
1996 - Ask_Jeeves, and
2004 - A9.com )
  • 3rd: Ok?; But, before: the correction: I gonna writing these lines on this TALK page
  • 4th: I know the two important things are also: I don't know the correct contributor of the article to notificate this to her/him
  • I must not mark the change as minor edit because I have no experience at this classification, and for the first question, in this item #4 (if it's important to say this, to the (...) contributor)
  • & 5th & last one: to correct the page code.
  • I should like, I had gone for a good wiki WAY ( or process ) ! Is there anybody out there ? ... Ciao ( That's all folks! )! PLA y Grande Covián (talk) 07:18, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] ask.com twice

ask.com is twice present in the chronological list --80.152.134.128 (talk) 21:44, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] "current market share" table should be removed

This should be removed because it (a) is not current; (b) does not reflect the numbers in the citation provided; (c) we should not simply be reproducing other organizations copyright-protected tables of information. We can certainly say "Google is ranked highest..." and then cite such a statistical table, but not simply recreate it. Comments welcome, before I remove it. --ZimZalaBim talk 14:43, 3 June 2008 (UTC)